swills

4 hours ago, Rail Way said:

In relation to Felixstowe services that were cancelled a fair bit last month this was the result of unfortunate incidents.

 

The problem is many of the rural lines are exactly that and the weather hasn't been great this year. Flooding and a number of vehicles hitting animals and vandalism incidents have resulted in the Greater Anglia DMU fleet being very stretched for a number of months now. This was down to sheer bad luck and there's nothing that Greater Anglia could do about this, when your luck is out and your luck is out.

 

We should not hold a number of freak incidents against Greater Anglia, since the whole idea of ordering the new fleet is to give more redundancy - to prevent this kind of issue in the future and this order will certainly do that, with longer carriages, more comfortable seats, USB sockets, more tables, high speed Wifi and far better passenger amenities. Rail is being transformed in this region and instead of moaning about first world problems, maybe we should realise how lucky we are, when you compare some of the other franchise owning groups who would never even think of doing such a massive step change transformation. 

 

Stadler are a well proven train building company and have made FLIRTS all around the world and many repeat customers. If they were so bad as you say they are and everyone else was having problems how would this be the case? The rolling stock market is competitive, you don't win the number of orders that Stadler do if your work is sub standard. Perhaps there's a little bit of sour grapes here because that they were not built in the UK and that is why the anti Stadler vibe?

 

Of course Network Rail will have to fix things at great cost to make the trains run, because passengers deserve to be able to depend on their train service and to enjoy the new features of state of the art rolling stock. If the signalling system worked perfectly then Network Rail wouldn't have to spend this money, but the system doesn't work perfectly so Network Rail need to invest time and money on fixing the issues with the signalling system. 

Sorry, missed what you were saying, the Felixstowe's were cancelled.....why... exactly ?   (and DON'T trot out Major Signalling Problems!)

As for the last sentence, The Signalling system worked as designed, right up until the first Stadler unit escaped from the Point,  there is a reason they are dubbed Basil's and Sybil's !

2 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

The good ol' days

That must be half the 'Legacy' fleet that AGA have left !

50 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

 

Oh yes I can.

Applications for Planning Permission need to be in compliance with the Local Development Framework, so AGA should have found a site suitable in policy terms for their use (industrial basically, or transport uses) or on existing transport-related land where such a use would be expected.  Any developer, industrialist or anyone wanting to develop land should know that, or employ someone who understands this to hold their hand.  Even if the site fell within a zone appropriate for the use, there can still be delay, as a wide range of statutory undertakers have to be consulted on a major application, not just the "nimbys" you patronisingly refer to.  This takes time, the more so with a major application like a rail depot.  There may be highways issues that need to be addressed (most depots have a significant amount of road traffic) which will need discussions about funding for any highways improvements.  Waste, water run-off, parking for staff, noise issues, lighting and power supplies all need to be factored in.  Anyone involved in development and planning knows these things take time, and that the statutory determination dates for planning applications are at best a guide suitable only for a conservatory, or at best a joke, especially as most planning departments have seen disproportionate cuts in staffing due to budget cuts.  So, if AGA had any sensible advice, they would have realised that getting a major new depot would take time.  However, as the depot plan at Brantham fell due to the highways impact of more frequent train movements into and out of the depot across a level crossing at Manningtree, you would have expected them to realise the unsuitability of the location a bit sooner.  Again, Anglia's management and contractor Taylor Woodrot, not exactly a novice to the UK planning system should have thought beyond their immediate needs and realised that having such an impact on the highway would cause problems.

In a 2018 article a spokesperson for the operator explained: “There are a number of issues to be resolved in order to progress with our proposed new depot at Brantham. These include preparation of the site, train access to the site and the fact that we have yet to agree commercial terms with the landowner involved.  “A potential further complication relates to the impact of additional train movements on the level crossing at Manningtree and we have been working with Network Rail about this.” There are currently only a limited number of times that the level crossing is allowed to close its gates, but the increase in rail traffic caused by the depot would mean increasing that number, which is not currently permitted because of the traffic flow issues it would cause. Greater Anglia also has to come to a deal with the landowner on commercial terms for the site and finish certain preparation works, meaning work will have to be paused while these issues are dealt with.

All of which should have been foreseen.  Also, the site is a former chemical plant, so there will have been land reclamation issues.

The Harwich depot that is replacing it was approved in July this year but was only submitted in March.  That's pretty swift for a major £70million depot which shows the original site was flawed.

And before you say anything, I'm a retired Chartered Town Planner and so can categorically say the original planning cock-up was their own fault.

The stock from the depot (apart from a few to Colchester) did not need to go over the crossing, they could have run to the North Curve and reversed, or Mistley and done the same, one of the issues was the incline out of the depot to the ML, it needed all signals 'off' on the ML to the Station or North Curve, with the unit waiting a short distance from the exit to get a run up the incline !  and also they seemed a bit surprised when they dug holes on the site, they quickly filled up with water !

30 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

Right. This is confirmed info regarding the 755s and their OHL compatability as we, the signaller, need to know this so that we dont have another elmswell incident.

Half of the fleet are currently banned from using their pans and half are permitted to use them. 

They are ONLY using them on routes that are electric from start to finish. So they are NOT, for example running on OHL from Ipswich to stowmarket, dropping the pan and then turning left at haughley, or running on OHL from platform 1 at ipswich to East Suffolk Jn and dropping on the move. That's horsecr*p. The only exception to this is the nor-stanstead which is on diesel from Norwich to cambridge and then OHL from there to the airport. The reason for this is that the OHL cannot support the draw of power from all the trains plus the 755 so its banned until cambridge. This has led to the trains being cancelled at times due to lack of fuel or being swapped with another unit at norwich and being delayed due to the swap. 

Now you can argue all you darn well like on this post but I know FIRST hand that it's TRUE because I have had to deal with it this week!

Driver found out today upon arrival at Cambridge, that the unit he had, was a pan isolated' one,  had to call 'fleet' and see if there was enough fuel to run under diesel to the Airport at back !

6 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

Back to a normal post for once as this has descended into chaos on here since the introduction of the GA fanboy.

 

5Q45 755332, currently en route to colchester, will be the first 755 to venture onto the sudbury branch tonight for test purposes. Currently running 45mins late due to GA staff incompetence at Crown "Faulty Towers" Point. Also, not running on OHL.

Will post a photo when it gets to us.

 

Thanks

  00:25 ***** 5Q45 NCH CRNPT 22:18 SUDBURY   00:25 STP TO    171219 171219 EE
  ***** 01:30 5Q48 SUDBURY   01:30 COLCHESTR 02:18 STP WO    181219 181219 EE
  04:01 ***** 5Q49 COLCHESTR 03:18 SUDBURY   04:01 STP WO    181219 181219 EE
  ***** 04:05 5Q50 SUDBURY   04:05 NCH CRNPT 06:17 STP WO    181219 181219 EE

5Q45 currently 56 late Ipswich (p3)

SORRY POOR PIC QUALITY
 

1 hour ago, wombatofludham said:

I actually remember that period just after installation.  You'd have thought someone would have checked local weather records about lightning and convectional weather in East Anglia the way we did for Midland Metro but hey ho, Railtrack wanted to shake up the industry and do things diff'nt.

As for AGA's press output, sorry, I've worked with similar press teams and I don't believe a word of it.  Look at the evidence:

1) The Sheringham resignalling was completed in 2000, and apart from the lightning issue, eventually settled down.  Since then it has been used by Class 60, Class 66, Class 150, Class 153, Class 156 and Class 170 on a regular basis, plus sundry other one offs including kettles.  The predictive speed track circuit triggers for the level crossings have worked fine for 19 years more or less, but within weeks of the new Class 755 entering service, a wrong side failure occurs.  That's suspicious.

 

2) AGA were being disingenuous when they said the signalling issue was affecting all routes worked by them.  If it was a signalling issue affecting all routes, how come EMR Class 158s were maintaining a service along the Ely-Norwich sector, and Thameslink maintaining the Ely to Cambridge sector, to which they were directing their customers?  What they should have said, but didn't, was it was a problem with their trains interfacing with track circuits which had led to a ban whilst they tried to figure out if the problem on the Cromer line was something more general, or specific to that route.  But they didn't, and preferred to infer it was all a signalling issue which ain't their problem, Guv.  The fact is it backfired on them as even the most clueless, non-rail enthusiast could see other trains were still running, just not the shiny new Anglia ones.

 

3) There is a wider issue here, not just the track circuiting interface mammaries akimbo problem.  It's the management of AGA who have blithely assumed these trains would work out of the box and allowed the leases on their older stock to be sold on to new operators (Diolch yn Fawr am y Dosbarthiau 153 a 170, oddi wrth Trafnidiaeth Cymru…) when past experience has shown time and time again trains often have problems with achieving reliability in the first months, or even years.  Whether it's the AM3 electrics in Glasgow in the 1960s with their exploding transformers, the Class 158s with their invisibility cloak track circuit disguise, or the modern day CAF units having to unplug from the OHLE when parked so as not to cause the Class 92s from having a hissy fit, or the sudden realisation that the Class 800 jumper cables were a wonderful climbing frame, or interfered with the signalling north of Doncaster, experience should have said we'll need a staged introduction and keep the old trains as a backup just in case, instead of a big bang with all the attendant problems of freeing up drivers for training and risk when a problem develops of the whole service going knickers I llawr.  That's management hubris, not Network Rail.  Plus, in any case, it's up to train suppliers to make a product fit for the unique UK circumstances, not for them to build something and find it doesn't work.

And if anyone thinks the Dutch don't mislead and cock things up, go look at the story of the Benelux Fyra trains, starring NS, SNCB and my old favourite, Ansaldo.  It's a fascinating tale, of a different scale to AGA but with similar root issues.

So, the $64,000 question is... Did the 'predictor' system go in with the resig by Vaughn Harmon in 2000, or put in place in the last 12 months ?

15 minutes ago, Rail Way said:

The disruption over the past few weeks has been caused by faults with the signalling system. Greater Anglia have said this over and over again and you still don't get it. As they said last week in an FAQ piece on their site, the idea that the new trains are solely to blame is categorically not true.

 

I also read back through the thread and noticed people saying freight trains and EMR trains are running and that is further proof it's the new trains that are broken. What a load of imaginative rubbish. Network Rail is responsible for prioritising which trains run on their infrastructure, so again, perhaps ask them why they didn't give GA higher priority. 

 

In addition, Network Rail last week were running extra rail head treatment trains because of the problems on the infrastructure which also caused many cancellations. Do you think they would waste their time, money and effort and running such trains if the infrastructure was fine and the problem was related to a fault with the new trains? 

 

Taking all the above into account, you'd think if NR were being blamed for something that isn't their fault, they'd come out and say something about it. But no, they're working with GA on the issues and are looking at how ALL TRAINS (both new and old) interact with the infrastructure. If it's obviously the new trains as you claim, isn't it odd that Network Rail haven't just come out and said it. Perhaps the reason NR haven't, is because the new trains are not the cause after all?

There are issues on the Cromer line, that is a given, AHB's are on local, or if not a caution over them, this applies to all trains, regardless of type, to avoid an incident, whereby a Signaller mistakes what type of unit is on the line, thus 156's are affected by default,  WHEN was the crossing equipment modified ?  as last year there were no problems at all, they started all of  sudden when the 755's kicked off,  the 755's have all been modified since, by removing flange  lubricators, and having citrous oil applied to shine the wheels a bit,  it is fair to say that similar units have had problems in Italy, Holland and Germany.   As for priority,  the line is run by Class 2's and dealt with as such, The tanks are Class 6 and take a lower priority.

Was it not said when the trains were first ordered that no one on the Ops side of GA were consulted, they were ordered by the commercial side, so there maybe the first glimpses of issues to come back then.

The 755's certainly do not like the UK network it seems, but that is not really a NR fault.  HOWEVER NR WILL one assumes have to alter things at great cost to enable GA to run the darn things.

There has also been days on end with no service on the Felixstowe, for no real reason at all,   None on the Sudbury, but they have not had any test trips at all yet on there, so that is one reason, if no spare 156's

Fuel is another big issue, and is causing a lot of delays and cancellations.

On ‎09‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 13:12, admiles said:

 

If the trains were built to the required specification it isn't actually a problem with the trains.

 

Cockup, yes but not actually the fault of Stadler. It's not as clear cut as simply blaming the new units.

 

Of course the answer to that isn't yet in the public domain.

Think it is an issue with the Stadlers, looking like a wheel profile problem maybe ?   It is certainly not a Signalling Problem, to which staff are getting a bit ticked off with !   as others have said,  156's  158's  37's etc  etc, all work just fine. (even the 153's before they left had no problems)

12 hours ago, Suzie said:

Is that not why axle counters were invented?

No, not really, they are cheaper than proper track circuits, seems the AHB system on the Cromer, might be unique to that line ?

All the other AHB's around here, are worked by traditional track circuit, backed up by treadles, which made life so much easier when we have (what are now rare) OTM's that cannot be relied upon to activate track circuits.

There certainly seems a few issues surrounding the 755s, another problem being the pantograph when going OHL to Diesel.

On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 17:38, beast66606 said:

 

It's slightly more than what you were told Andy - the tracks measure the speed of the train so the barriers are always down for more or less the same time, no matter how fast the train is travelling.

We had an S&T guy here the other day explaining how it works, and yes it is a 'predictor' system, and based on occupation and some sort of electrical feedback, (did not really follow what he was saying), operates the AHB's so that be it a 156 / 755 running at line speed, or the Tanks running at a lower speed, the AHB's will be down for roughly the same amount of time, but it seems the 755 must have 'vanished' and the crossing thought, OK train gone :-)

Cannot see a quick fix for the 755s, and something needs to be done by Monday, maybe restrict the 755s to Yarmouth & Lowestoft, and use the 156s and the 170 on Cambridge & Ipswich trains, with Felixstowe and Sudbury taking the 'no train' hit ?   also seems to be something odd going on with the actual wheelsets too